Redskin is first recorded in the late 17th century and was applied to the Algonquian peoples generally, but specifically to the Delaware (who
lived in what is now southern New York State and New York City, New Jersey, and eastern Pennsylvania). Redskin referred not to the natural skin color
of the Delaware, but to their use of vermilion face paint and body paint. In time, however, through a process that in linguistics is called
pejoration, by which a neutral term acquires an unfavorable connotation or denotation, redskin lost its neutral, accurate descriptive sense and became
a term of disparagement. Red man is first recorded in the early 17th century and was originally neutral in tone. Red Indian is first recorded in the
early 19th century and was used by the British, far more than by Americans, to distinguish the Indians of the subcontinent from the Indians of the
Americas. All three terms are dated or offensive. American Indian and Native American are now the standard umbrella terms. Of course, if it is
possible or appropriate, one can also use specific tribal names (Cheyenne, Nez Percé, etc.)

I am aware of what the team says they feel the Redskin mascot means. Regardless of the definition, my point is that we can't start banning the use of
words and phrases. Obviously not enough folks are offended to put a "hurting" on the team/franchise.

This is from the former team owner and some results from a poll:

Former Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke said, "I admire the Redskins name. I think it stands for bravery, courage, and a stalwart spirit and I see
no reason why we shouldn't continue to use it." Supporters also refer to a public opinion poll published in 2004 in which 90% of those who identified
as American Indians answered that they were "not bothered" by the name "Redskins" being used for the Washington football team.

The poll is from 2004, but even then a lot of American Indians didn't find it offensive.

I understand that a few do. But a few of everybody can find anything offensive. That's the point. There will always be something offensive with what
people say and what they do. We can't restrict freedoms because of that. As much as I loathe Westboro Baptist Church and could almost puke every time
Fred Phelps opened his mealy mouth, I could not hold truck with prohibiting his speech in any way.

Why?

Again, because it will spread. I know people think that it won't or don't even care that it might as long as they get what they want right now... But
you are asking for the flood gates to open on banning any kind of speech. Is it worth that price? I don't think so.

I'm really not in the argument of whether it is offensive or not. What my argument is in essence is what are we opening ourselves up for when we make
it illegal for someone to use a name? That's my argument as there is no doubt some are offended so it's a waste of time to debate whether they should
be or not. Everyone is entitled to be offended by whatever they choose.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a commonly quoted part of a dialogue in William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in
which Juliet argues that the names of things do not matter, only what things "are".

You cannot load a word into a weapon and kill someone with it.
You cannot hurl a word at someone and hope to harm them with it.

The only way a word can cause harm is how it is interpreted by the individual.

Right now, in our current societal stage, we have words which have been deemed offensive. I won't bother listing them. Everyone knows what those
words are, and T&C doesn't allow me to list them anyway.

What if society evolves, in a way, that is less "enlightened"?

What if society thought that the term "homosexual" was offensive? Many people have been quite open (on this site) about their feelings on the
subject. Should their feelings on "homosexuality" be considered s valid?

In the previous few pages, I asked the question, "Where do we draw the line?"

I thought that we all came to a consensus on the issue. Apparently not.

From stereo-typing of the "drunken Irish", to "red neck", you'll find just about any group or any sub-population that might take offense to just
about any given term.

And we can all feel good about one another if steps are taken to curb any given term, until it becomes a term you use and DO NOT find offensive.

to repeat;

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" is a commonly quoted part of a dialogue in William Shakespeare's play Romeo and Juliet, in
which Juliet argues that the names of things do not matter, only what things "are".

I agree with our Native American population. I am highly insulted by the racially charged name of the Washington Redskins.

One might argue that to name a professional football team after Native Americans would exalt them as fine warriors, but nay, nay.

We must be careful not to offend, and in the spirit of political correctness and courtesy, we must move forward.

Let's ditch the Kansas City Chiefs, the Atlanta Braves and the Cleveland Indians.

If your shorts are in a wad because of the reference the name Redskins makes to skin color, then we need to get rid of the Cleveland Browns.

The Carolina Panthers obviously were named to keep the memory of militant Blacks from the 60's alive. Gone. It's offensive to us white folk.

The New York Yankees offend the Southern population. Do you see a team named for the Confederacy? No! There is no room for any reference to that
tragic war that cost this country so many young men's lives.

While we're at it, the Los Angeles Dodgers brings back bitter memories to Viet Nam vets and will have to go.

I am also offended by the blatant references to the Catholic religion among our sports team names. Totally inappropriate to have the New Orleans
Saints, the Los Angeles Angels or the San Diego Padres.

Then there are the team names that glorify criminals who raped and pillaged. We are talking about the horrible Oakland Raiders, the Minnesota Vikings,
the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and the Pittsburgh Pirates!

Now, let us address those teams that clearly send the wrong message to our children. The San Diego Chargers promote irresponsible fighting or even
spending habits. Wrong message to our children.

The New York Giants and the San Francisco Giants promote obesity, a growing childhood epidemic. Wrong message to our children.

Also geographic names should be changed to reflect the current political mood:
Squaw Valley should be renamed Native American Married Woman Valley.
All references to Indians such as Indian River, Wells, Junction, Road, Springs, etc. will have to be changed.

Fortunately GM cancelled that slanderous vehicle named Pontiac.
Now just the Michigan city has to change its name to something more appropriate i.e. Bankrupt MI.

So, there you go. We need to support any legislation that comes out to rectify this travesty, because the government will likely become involved with
this issue, as they should.

Just the kind of thing the do-nothing congress loves . . .

With all of this in mind, it might also make some sense to change the name of the Oregon State women's athletic teams to something other than "The
Beavers." ?

The team that you will really have a problem find a new name for is the Cowboy. Every real cowboy I know is massively offended by the fact they
can't.

a reply to: beezzer>> I wa slistening to local talk radio ( not nationally syndicated) and a regular douche bag caller chimed
in on the topic. I've come to the conclusion that very often if a liberal/ left wing caller takes a side on an issue its not done out of support of
the side but its generally done to hammer at somebody on the other side politically. He used the argument of whether or not you would use the term "
Redskin" to describe somebody you knew who was a native American or would use the term to their face. Fair enough. I wouldn't call a Native American
a "redskin". But I also wouldn't call them an " Indian" or a " Chief" or a "Brave" . So by using his argument, we'll have to change those
other teams names. Yes, we've reached the gray area between insanity and stupidity.
Where can I get a job where I get paid to be offended?

I personally think all of this PC bullhonk is ridiculous. I believe the problem is the victim culture perpetuated by the far-too vocal minority. All
people should be proud of their heritage, instead of viewing their people and their history as a mark of victimhood or oppression that they can use as
an excuse to complain. I'm proud of my Irish ancestry and I don't fly off the handle when I see the Fightin' Irish mascot, and that stereotype is
even more archaic.

I think we should re-appropriate the term Redskin to mean someone who uses race, gender, religion, lifestyle or sexuality as a label so they can be a
fashionable victim. This culture of Oppression Chic and political correctness needs to stop before it turns into a ridiculous world-wide game of
one-downmanship; where people brag about how many of their ancestors died at the hands of whoever.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.